Writing Scientific Research Articles: Strategy and Steps

parts.
The
language
or
structure
of
the
manuscript
is
poor
and
it
could
not
be
sent
to
referees.
The
editor
may
have
made
this
decision
before
review.
Revise
the
man
uscript
using
the
author
response
guide
(Table
14.2)
and
resubmit
or
submit
the
manuscript
to
another
journal.
High-ranking
journals
need
to
reject
a
high
proportion
of
submitted
manuscripts
even
if
the
reviews
are
(mostly)
positive.
Examine
the
editor’s
letter
and
determine
whether
there
is
any
encouragement
to
resubmit
a
revised
manuscript
(e.g.
‘‘revise
and
resubmit
..
.’’).
If
there
is,
revise
and
resubmit
following
Rules
of
thumb
2
and
3
(section
14.1).
If
resubmission
is
not
encouraged,
revise
the
manuscript
using
the
referee’s
reports
following
Rules
of
thumb
2
and
3
(section
14.1)
and
submit
it
to
the
next
journal
on
your
list
(see
Table
12.1).
Referees
may
not
have
read
or
understood
the
paper
thoroughly
enough
to
appreciate
it.
Recommendations
from
the
referee
to
the
editor
may
not
be
clear
or
may
have
been
misinterpreted.
Something
may
have
annoyed
the
referee:
they
are
unpredictable
and
can
be
helpful
or
(sometimes)
unhelpful.
You
can
appeal
to
the
editor,
although
this
is
unlikely
to
be
successful
unless
a
major
error
of
judgement
has
been
made
by
the
referee
or
editor.
It
is
always
wise
to
make
the
uncontroversial
changes
recommended
before
appealing,
resubmitting,
or
submitting
to
a
different
journal.
Revise
and
resubmit
or
submit
to
a
new
journal.
Clarify
any
issues
which
have
caused
problems
by
revising
the
text.
If
resubmitting
to
the
same
journal,
make
note
in
your
letter
to
the
editor
of
any
misunderstanding,
any
supportive
comments
from
referees,
and
the
improvements
you
have
made
to
the
manuscript.
Cargill / Writing Scientific Research Articles 9781405186193_4_c14 Final Proof page 80 13.1.2009 2:32pm Compositor Name: KKavitha

---

14.3 How to deal with ‘‘conditional acceptance’’
or ‘‘revise and resubmit’’
Few manuscripts are accepted for publication without some revision. The level of
revision varies from minor changes to the language, references, or formatting
to major revisions which may require resubmission for fresh reviewing. In fields
where journals compete for a share of the new and interesting research in a
discipline and/or a share of the subscription market, journal editors aim to accept
high-quality manuscripts as quickly as possible and get them into print in a timely
manner. When the science is obviously interesting and new but the manuscript
requires major work before it is acceptable, the editor may reject the paper but
encourage rewriting and resubmission. If the manuscript requires some modifi-
cation but not major restructuring, additional research, or rewriting, the editor
may accept the manuscript on the condition that recommended changes are made
and the article returned by a set date. An example of a conditional acceptance letter is
provided in Figure 14.1. This conditional acceptance provides you the opportunity
to consider and incorporate the comments of reviewers and the editor. However, it
is not always easy to understand or address reviewer comments.
N.B. The difference between a conditional acceptance and a revise and resubmit
response is usually only visible in the wording the editor uses in their letter to you.
Your first task when you receive the response is to decide what the editor means,
and this is not always easy. The editor may use indirect language in the interest of
being polite and maintaining your good opinion of the journal for future occasions.
If you are in any doubt about the meaning, show the letter to a colleague and
discuss it. In any case, you will need to communicate with your co-authors about
your response while deciding your strategy for the next stage in the process.
There are many ways to deal with reviewers’ comments and you will develop your
own strategies. Here we outline an approach used by many experienced authors.
.
Don’t get angry or offended by the comments. The reviewer or editor may have
misunderstood something or you may have communicated it poorly. Dealing
with reviewers’ comments is part of the publishing process and they should not
be seen as a personal attack on your credibility as a scientist.
.
Read the comments and check the manuscript to make sure you understand
what the referee or editor is asking you to do.
.
Highlight any comments which are difficult to respond to or are unclear.
.
Show the difficult comments to co-authors or colleagues and seek their advice
about how to deal with them. If comments are still difficult, unclear, or they
annoy you, leave them for a few days (not more than a week) and return to
address them when you have had time to absorb them.
.
Review the Rules of thumb (section 14.1).
.
Make all the small changes which do not require major rewriting and note each
change in a letter to the editor.
.
Respond to any major comments using the suggested responses in Table 14.2.
Main types of reviewer comments
Every review is different and will present different challenges to which to respond.
However, the majority of reviewer comments fall into the seven categories listed
overleaf.
81
How
to
respond
to
editors
and
referees
Ch
14
How
to
respond
to
editors
and
referees
Cargill / Writing Scientific Research Articles 9781405186193_4_c14 Final Proof page 81 13.1.2009 2:32pm Compositor Name: KKavitha

---

1 The aims of the study are not clear.
2 The theoretical premise or ‘‘school of thought’’ on which the work is based is
challenged.
3 The experimental design or analysis methods are challenged.
4 You are asked to supply additional data or information that would improve the
paper.
5 You are asked to remove information or discussion.
6 The conclusions are considered incorrect, weak, or too strong.
7 The referee has unspecific negative comments, e.g. ‘‘poorly designed’’, ‘‘poorly
written’’, ‘‘badly organized’’, ‘‘tables are too large’’, ‘‘relevant literature not
cited’’, or ‘‘English is poor’’.
Decide which of these categories each of the difficult comments falls into.
If these categories do not cover the comment you have received, decide what
From: Dr AB Brown, 
Editor, Journal of…
Dear Dr Zhu,
I enclose the referees’ reports on your paper entitled ….  The referees agree 
that the paper contains much good material. However, they have recom-
mended that it needs considerable revision before it can be published. In